development discussion

[Sevz]

the races guide also needs updating
also can i tweak the benefits? and put a limit on make attack opps to help the indies

[Shadow]

Well Sevah there is no guarantee that your changes ill be made, but if you post your suggested race stats and justify them then we will put them in the pipline. I think we actually do need to tweak a few to get some of the less used races into the open, so your suggestions might help us get started on that.

[Sevz]

i have 70trillion ideas for this servers benefit

if there was no open attack ops, rat would be a GOD race

[Firetooth]

i have 70trillion ideas for this servers benefit

if there was no open attack ops, rat would be a GOD race

Exactly why there is op atks ;)
But I agree if you could ony op atk a certain amount rat would be alot stronger-I like it

[Shadow]

I think that the ideal solution is to make open atk op affected by raised defenses - if your shields are up, you only get one attack per open. Although on the other hand, that makes leaders much stronger too because of the way takedown math works. So maybe Sevs is right that we should simply limit things - say, no more than 63 non-op attacks before no more ops can be opened.

[Firetooth]

No, that is still too much imo. I'd go for more like 40-50.

[Juska]

You could re-write to code so that it uses an attack limit rather than a defense limit.

So that empires can only make so many attacks period, enemies in the war slot would be exempt obviously. That would technically eliminate the need for opening attack ops on untagged empires, it also reduces the large advantage untagged empires currently have (the fact that an untagged emp can attack very many people and then be maxxed by far fewer attacks on themselves), it also fixes the problem you can have of players casting spells and using attacks that are not beneficial: shielded murders and other leader spells, small amounts of suicides, failed troop attacks, etc. which in turn help max that enemy.   

If you did that you could make a spell that gives more attacks to your empire, make it usable from the generals huts and give it a large loyalty cost just like the heal spell.

I would like to see when attack opportunities are opened on you otherwise in the news, just like successful espys, so I can know how many times people actually cast it on me.

Increasing the loyalty cost of the current attack op would be a reasonable deterrent as well.

I don't really like totally limiting attack ops to a certain number. The hit limit should be used to stop multiple empires from killing (or utterly destroying) a single empire that does not have the benefit of a clan, it should not be used to give solo empires an advantage of holding more land than their clanned peers.

[Firetooth]

You could re-write to code so that it uses an attack limit rather than a defense limit.

So that empires can only make so many attacks period, enemies in the war slot would be exempt obviously. That would technically eliminate the need for opening attack ops on untagged empires, it also reduces the large advantage untagged empires currently have (the fact that an untagged emp can attack very many people and then be maxxed by far fewer attacks on themselves), it also fixes the problem you can have of players casting spells and using attacks that are not beneficial: shielded murders and other leader spells, small amounts of suicides, failed troop attacks, etc. which in turn help max that enemy.   

If you did that you could make a spell that gives more attacks to your empire, make it usable from the generals huts and give it a large loyalty cost just like the heal spell.

I would like to see when attack opportunities are opened on you otherwise in the news, just like successful espys, so I can know how many times people actually cast it on me.

Increasing the loyalty cost of the current attack op would be a reasonable deterrent as well.

I don't really like totally limiting attack ops to a certain number. The hit limit should be used to stop multiple empires from killing (or utterly destroying) a single empire that does not have the benefit of a clan, it should not be used to give solo empires an advantage of holding more land than their clanned peers.

That post seems to cover most of the points, I'd be happy for a system like that t implemented.

[Shadow]

Neat idea, but what is to stop someone from using all their attacks on a single person? You might end up worse off then before. I do like the idea of putting open atk op in general's hut though, and making is something like: "if successful, allows three attacks on any empire that is currently maxxed." That would allow indiers to use it too, if they save up loyalty. On the other hand, this means that it would be completely impossible to defend against, which would make leaders more or less obsolete since takedowns would become so easy. So there is a lot more balancing to do if it does move the gen hut.

[Juska]

How does it make take downs easier?

I'm just trying to understand your thinking Shadow, not trying to bash your thoughts.

Well, self-interest would stop players from using all their attacks on one person if they have less land relative to other empires. I don't see how we end up worse off than before.

Technically, a bunch of people could kill a solo with an attack limit rather than a defense limit; however, right now a bunch of people could kill a solo if they destroyed his leaders.

[Shadow]

Right now, a leader can block open atk op by keping a good defense. If it were moved to gen hut, that defense would be meaningless. Food massing would become obsolete as a strat because anyone could completely ruin your net any time they wanted to, basically. Which might not be a bad thing after we get more strat diversity here at RWL, but as things stand now, it would be a -very- bad thing.

A potentially more balanced option would be to allow indiers a troop based open atk op in warlord's hut. Or an attack like standard that has a higher cost in health and turns that doesn't add to the opponent's hit total. Something along those lines.

Actually that idea could be used elsewhere too - say this attack is like standard, except that the defender gets a 50% defensive boost, like take city. And it costs maybe 3 turns and 8 health per shot. Then an indier could really sock it to someone for land if someone unclanned has it, but they pay extra just like a leader would. In turn, this provides leader players an incentive to keep a standing army in order to block this, which would make the market much more active if we tweak mercs so that they are harder to get ahold of, which in turns boosts indies through sales.

Would be a lot of balancing and reworking, but these are just my idle thoughts, maybe you can add to them.

What I meant by focusing all their attacks on one person is in a takedown - basically takedowns would become laughably easy if you can attack one person like 50 times. And since food massing takes sooooo long, once again it would be obsolete, because nobody is going to risk getting owned like that after months of work. Your idea has some promise, but it needs to be a little more balanced vis a vis leader takedowns.

[Juska]

Do you know the forumla for success of Opening an Atk. Op. on someone right now? I don't and don't really want to dig through code to find it.

Everything you said about a troop attack op. I'm fully behind.

Your takedown scenario is based upon the use of multiple leader suicides correct?

General's Hut option could be very abused, especially if it opened 3 attacks on any maxxed empire. I would only really support a General's hut option if we switched to an attack limit system, and then I would propose a minimum loyalty cost of 200,000 and after costs similar to heal, a 90+ needed ratio, and make the spell non-stackable and only add new attack per cast. That way you couldn't not abuse it by starting with low land, cast it a bunch of times to boost your attack limit, cost you little loyalty, and then go to town on your targets.

[Shadow]

To open atk op, your attack ratio needs to be 80% higher than their defense ratio.

I still see a lot of problems with an attack limit system, but let me think about it for a day or two before I get back to you. I was mulling this over last night and I have a few possibilities, but I haven't had time to hash out all the pros and cons yet. Basically my idea was to combine attack and defense limits, where people still get maxxed after 21 attacks, you can only do 63 attacks per run, and the gen hut missions lets you do more attacks in general, but doesn't unmax other people. Again, there are still problems with that, so give me a while to elaborate.

[Sevz]

i can work on fixing up this server all around making it more fair for everyone.

i'm just not to keen to waste my time if it's not gonna be used.

if you can ensure that for any time i put in working out exactly what needs to be repaired and variables that  someone will match that time and do something towards it.

i'm familiar with the codes etc.

[Shadow]

We can't really ensure anything, because Shael is really our only active coder. But if you put out good ideas, I'll make sure they stay in the pipeline until something is done about them.